Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/04/2004 09:07 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 424(JUD)
"An Act relating to review by the Legislative Affairs Agency
of certain state agency regulations proposed for adoption,
amendment, or repeal under the Administrative Procedure Act;
repealing provisions relating to annulment of regulations; and
providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this bill, Version 23-LS0732\U, "would
establish a formal process in which a Legislative review would be
included when specified State agencies' regulations are being
developed after legislation is adopted. He noted that several
fiscal notes accompany the legislation.
BARBARA COTTING, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, the bill's
sponsor, affirmed Co-Chair Wilken's remarks. She commented that
"Legislators are often surprised" by how laws they have enacted are
enforced by regulation. She reviewed that, under current law, the
lone individual specified to review regulations is the Attorney
General. This legislation, she continued, would implement a formal
process that would require the Legislative Legal Division of the
Legislative Affairs Agency to review regulations, written by the
various agencies, in order to determine whether the regulations
comply with statutory authority and Legislative intent. She stated
that were non-compliance determined, the appropriate people would
be notified "and the Legislature can act." She stressed that this
process would have a positive impact on the State's economy because
the Legislative intent would be upheld and a more stable
environment would be created.
Senator Dyson asked whether the sponsor's handout titled "Steps in
the Regulation Adoption Process" [copy on file] outlines the
current process.
Ms. Cotting affirmed that it does.
Senator Dyson asked where, in the current process, the proposed
procedure would be implemented.
Ms. Cotting responded that the proposed Legislative Legal review
would occur between Steps Four "Department of Law opens file" and
Five "Agency publishes and distributes public notice, add't notice
information, and regulations".
Senator Dyson asked for further information regarding the process
that would be implemented were Legislative Legal to determine that
the regulations were non-compliant.
Ms. Cotting responded that, "at that point, written notice" would
be provided to the Department of Law, the agency that developed the
regulations, the Regulation Review Committee, the President of the
Senate, and the Speaker of the House.
Senator Dyson asked what action might occur upon notification;
specifically in a situation where the agency disregarded the
notice.
Ms. Cotting responded that other than notification of non-
concurrence, the State's Constitution regarding separation of
powers would not allow the process to be halted.
Senator Dyson surmised therefore, that the option in that case
would be to adopt more State statutes in order to allow more
conformity to occur.
Ms. Cotting agreed.
Senator Dyson noted that other states have allowed their
legislature to change regulation by resolution. He asked whether
this process would require a Constitutional amendment.
Ms Cotting affirmed that it would. She noted that another component
of this bill would remove that provision from State statute, as it
was declared unconstitutional.
Senator Bunde recalled that a similar proposal by the Legislature
had previously been "soundly rejected" in a statewide ballot.
DEBRA BEHR, Assistant Attorney General, Legislative & Regulations
Section, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law,
affirmed that such language had been on a Statewide election ballot
in 1980, 1984, and 1986, and had, she continued, been defeated each
time by voters.
Senator Bunde commented that were a Legislative Legal review
process added to the current process, modifications to the process
might occur over time. He opined that were this process
implemented, the Legislature might benefit by being forewarned that
changes might be required "sooner than later." However, he
cautioned that, without additional staff, the volume of regulations
that occur on an annual basis might overwhelm Legislative Legal
personnel.
Ms. Behr stated that the Legislative Affairs Agency's initial
fiscal note, in addition to requesting an additional attorney
position, reflected funding from the Legislature. However, she
noted that that fiscal note was zeroed out by the House of
Representatives Finance Committee. She pointed out that the
Department of Law's indeterminate fiscal note #6, which accompanies
the bill, is the result of uncertainty regarding the level of
resources that might be provided by the Legislature as well as the
effect on the level of support the Department of Law would be
required to provide to the process.
Senator Bunde asked the number of regulations that would have been
reviewed the previous year, were this process in effect.
Ms. Behr responded that this legislation would establish a priority
system in that reviews could be limited to regulations resulting
from new legislation or expanded to review regulations pertaining
to regulations that the Legislature might perceive "to have major
policy implications." She reiterated that, in addition to this
unknown element, Legislative Legal workloads during the Legislative
Session would require Legislative Council prioritization.
Senator Bunde asked for further information regarding the
determinations of major policy implications by Legislative
committees.
Ms. Behr referred the Committee to the prioritization procedure
language located in Section 2, subsection (b)(1) and (2) on page
two, lines 7-13 that reads as follows.
(b) Reviews shall be conducted under (a) of this section in
the following order of priority:
(1) proposed regulations that would implement newly
enacted legislation;
(2) proposed regulations requested in writing to be
reviewed by a standing committee, the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee, or the legislative council as
implicating major policy development.
Ms. Behr stated that this language would assist in avoiding review
of every regulation which could, she exampled, range from reviewing
regulations pertaining to non-major priority things such as the
raising of fees five dollars or increasing continuing education
requirements for hairdressers. Therefore, she stated that the bill,
as written, would allow regulations to be reviewed as desired by
the Legislature.
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff, Administrative Regulatory Review Committee,
Office of Senate President Gene Therriault, stated that this
legislation would develop a "cooperative quality review" process
that, by allowing the Legislature to be involved in the process,
would serve to encourage that regulations are "written more
carefully." He noted that were a prioritization process developed,
Legislative Legal staff would work with the Department of Law and
the various departments' regulation writers to enhance the process.
Furthermore, he continued, that were the system to work as
intended, the Legislature could increase funding if so desired.
Senator Olson asked how controversial, high visibility regulations
such as those pertinent to the Department of Fish and Game would be
addressed.
Ms. Behr stated that the Department of Fish and Game is exempt from
this review proposal as that Department has its own Board and has a
different regulation process.
Co-Chair Green moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CS HB 424(JUD) was REPORTED from
Committee with zero fiscal note #4, dated March 24, 2004 from the
Department of Health and Social Services; zero fiscal note #5,
dated March 25, 2004 from the Legislature; and indeterminate fiscal
note #6, dated March 24, 2004 from the Department of Law.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|